What the official did right there was execute the method of Preventative Officiating. Given the circumstances of the game, (time remaining, score, possession, possession arrow, ball location, etc...) he knew what the opponent was trying to do and he also knew the severity of the penalty. He tried to talk him out of an Intentional Foul. (he barked at him to stop) When he didn't stop, he did what was required by the rule and the Point of Emphasis covering this situation.

Had he sensed that the player being bumped was ready to retaliate on the first bump, he would have jumped all over the whistle and called the Intentional Foul right then and there.

It's a method of officiating that is utilized constantly throughout a game. Sometimes everyone sees it. Sometimes it's a quiet word between official and player and sometimes it's communicated through a captain, assistant coach, or head coach.

What the official did right there was execute the method of Preventative Officiating. Given the circumstances of the game, (time remaining, score, possession, possession arrow, ball location, etc...) he knew what the opponent was trying to do and he also knew the severity of the penalty. He tried to talk him out of an Intentional Foul. (he barked at him to stop) When he didn't stop, he did what was required by the rule and the Point of Emphasis covering this situation.

Had he sensed that the player being bumped was ready to retaliate on the first bump, he would have jumped all over the whistle and called the Intentional Foul right then and there.

It's a method of officiating that is utilized constantly throughout a game. Sometimes everyone sees it. Sometimes it's a quiet word between official and player and sometimes it's communicated through a captain, assistant coach, or head coach.

Training and experience pays off.

This is a good post- thanks for the insight. I watch a ton of basketball and have kids who have played at the top level in high school and one in college but this was boggling to me like so many others. After some time to digest the info- it does make sense why it was called, just tough to digest.

This is a good post- thanks for the insight. I watch a ton of basketball and have kids who have played at the top level in high school and one in college but this was boggling to me like so many others. After some time to digest the info- it does make sense why it was called, just tough to digest.

I have always done my best to not have blinders on and be fair on here- the truth is, no matter what your opinion of it, it was still a subjective call. Makes sense why it was called, but the fact that it doesn't have to be called yet was when a state championship was on the line does make it very tough to digest. Truth is- it didn't have to be called, but I understand why it was and have said on here that it wasn't the reason Moeller lost- they didn't play as well as Jackson did on Saturday.

I have always done my best to not have blinders on and be fair on here- the truth is, no matter what your opinion of it, it was still a subjective call. Makes sense why it was called, but the fact that it doesn't have to be called yet was when a state championship was on the line does make it very tough to digest. Truth is- it didn't have to be called, but I understand why it was and have said on here that it wasn't the reason Moeller lost- they didn't play as well as Jackson did on Saturday.

In reality it was not a subjective call, it was in fact called according to the rule book. And should be called more often. And this has nothing to do with Moeller. It was 100% the right call, and even moreso as he warned the kid twice to stop.

In reality it was not a subjective call, it was in fact called according to the rule book. And should be called more often. And this has nothing to do with Moeller. It was 100% the right call, and even moreso as he warned the kid twice to stop.

So if it "should be called more often" does that mean the foul happens and is not always called? That's subjective to me- when the rule is not always applied.

The rule is not subjective. The action of the players involve are subject to judgment, such as...

The type of contact
The severity of contact (although severe contact is not automatically a foul)
Was the player being contacted a part of the play?

etc.....

Maybe subjective isn't the perfect word, but that the rule in place is open to a judgement call. The call on the foul is not applied every time and is not given the same "punishment" every time. just as speeding is always illegal, you don't get ticketed every time. Most people go a little over the speed limit from time to time without getting pulled over- but they are still speeding. For anyone to say that this foul is always called and always is treated as an intentional would be incorrect

Jackson 39 Moeller 38. Jackson's best player (and arguably the best player in the state) was 1-10 and scored 5 points. Moeller fans should quit complaining about the refs. What more could they have wanted to put themselves in a position to win? Go freaking make plays when you get a gift like that. If KY has anything close to his typical game, it's a blowout. Arguably there were a lot of no calls on Moeller down low against Kyle Young but you won't hear anyone talk about that. Moeller is a good team but Jackson was better.

Maybe subjective isn't the perfect word, but that the rule in place is open to a judgement call.

Just as the rule for traveling is open to judgment. Did he pick up his pivot foot prior to releasing the ball on a dribble?....etc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kballer

The call on the foul is not applied every time and is not given the same "punishment" every time. just as speeding is always illegal, you don't get ticketed every time. Most people go a little over the speed limit from time to time without getting pulled over- but they are still speeding. For anyone to say that this foul is always called and always is treated as an intentional would be incorrect

Ok, to put this to rest, ( hopefully ) ask yourself this question........

Knowing that there is a rule covering this situation, and knowing that the rule is clear........... Why do people complain about the guy who correctly applies the rule?

Regardless of the op's opinion, this is a tactic that is used by many coaches. Jackson's coach made a great counter by putting Hill at the far end of the court so it would be obvious if he intentionally fouled him and the kid trying to do it, did it poorly. It was a pretty easy call for the ref. Give Jackson credit, they made one less mistake and one more play than Moeller did.

and that coach that needs the fouls, to get the other team to the line, and doesn't get the calls? How's their opinion on "doesn't need to be called."

The rules are there so coaches and players aren't guessing. Refs should not be "letting them play" or whatever vernacular someone wants to put to it. They should be calling the rule book.

I agree with this so much. I absolutely hate it when refs refuse to call fouls in some lame attempt to "not affect the game and let the players decide it." If you are calling the game and not abiding by the rules, then you are in fact deciding the game, instead of letting the players decide it.

I've seen in the NBA where they would literally jump on Deandre Jordan's back to put him on the line. In a way, I don't which is the better view; to allow the foul to be a regular foul and be done with it (This makes sense, because the coach of the team that is in front could always put his best FT shooters on the floor); or to make it intentional (This makes sense, too. But in a way you are allowing the team in the lead to not to have to make adjustments). IMO, it would probably be best to just treat it as a foul. If you can foul the guy who has the ball and not have that be intentional (even though it is!), then why can't you foul any other person on the floor as well and have it treated the same way. If you are a fan of strategy, then let it be a regular foul. The team's head coach has the chance to switch out offense for defense (or in this case, rotate in FT shooters). If a guy can't shoot free throws and is on the floor at crunch time, should the rules protect him?

I believe that the NBA does not allow this anymore inside 2 minutes of the game. An intentional foul off the ball or a foul before the inbounds pass results in free throws and the offensive team maintains possession. This certainly solves the problem.

How about we commend the ref on having the wherewithal and the onions to call that foul @ that point in a state title game. We all bury the refs from time-to-time, but this guy called it as instructed..... excellent..

I agree. The refs get blasted a lot, and they deserve credit when they get things right as well.

The reason is that some referees would have made that call, and others would have not. We see it at every level of play. Some refs decide to swallow their whistles at the end of the game, others do not. The fact that refs are inconsistent in their approach is what leads to problems like this. It's obvious that the Moeller coach had gotten away with this in the past and that's why he tried it here.

I think it's like most people feel like if they are going 68 in a 65 zone- yes they are speeding but unlikely to get pulled over even if they get gunned going 3 mph over the speed limit as that just isn't normally done. To not only get pulled over for that but get the heftiest penalty allowed but rarely used would feel like you got screwed, even though it is absolutely within the officers and judges right to do so.

The reason is that some referees would have made that call, and others would have not. We see it at every level of play. Some refs decide to swallow their whistles at the end of the game, others do not.

Don't ask the folks at Elyria about refs swallowing their whistle late in the game....
But NEVER in the OHSAA tournament.

Agreed they are the best of the best. Agreed that letting the play go is not doing job correctly.

However, was the "best of the best" referee following the rules when he let the intentional foul go by without calling it, twice, before calling it the third time?

I thought it was great officiating that he gave verbal warnings. They should put that in a instructional video on how to handle that moment. Their job is to ensure the game is played within rules. If the verbal caused the kid to back off and obey rules, great outcome.

End of the day its about playing the game within bounds. Sometimes refs can verbally accomplish it most of the time the wistle has to correct things. Good refs never really want to blow their whistle in a perfect world in my opinion

My question was, are the concepts you discuss above stated in the rulebook?

No. Just like there's nothing in the book that dictates what words directed towards us from a coach and/or a player should result in a technical foul.
Experience and training are where these philosophies are born. Coaches and administrators expect them to be used.

The good ones (officials) have mastered these and know when to and not to employ them.

Listen, I am a big fan of the verbal warning. However, if a ref sees a violation but gives a warning instead of calling a foul, I don't know how that can be construed as ensuring the "game is played within rules". By your scenario, a player violated a rule and was given only a warning. It may be the best thing for the game, but it is not "following the rules".

It is semantics, so perhaps worth discussing no further. There is a lot of gray area within the referee's job, and it is no easy task.

I understand. I think you agree the only real problem here was the intentional call from the bench to a player not active on the ball.

Now if that rule needs to be adjusted you could probably argue many ways, but the ref did nothing wrong in this scenario. Only the coach.

This Post is running out of steam. My questions are these:
#1-Did said Coach instruct said player to foul?
#2-Did said player follow instructions and intentionally foul the opponent?
#3-Did said official warn before making the call?
The answer to all of said questions is yes. The official did the right thing even though the Moeller staff disagrees and have gotten away with it in the past.
Moving forward something needs to be done to help the officials. Right now it is to subjective for officials. Make it very clear what happens in the intentional "hack a Shaq" scenario. The foul wasn't flagrant, but it was intentional. Take the gray area out of the officials subjective decision making.

Congratulations to Jackson on their state title. They hung tough in a hard fought battle. As for this thread it's just more trash from jwuerth who is a reknown Moeller hater and is allowed to spew his hate any time he wants on Yappi. The man truly is a pathetic tool.

No doubt the foul was "intentional"...not physical or dirty, but definitely purposeful and the clear desire was to have a foul called. The interesting question is what caused the Moeller coach to think he could get away with it? Especially with refs he's not familiar with. Does he have a history of calling for that tactic and getting a common foul called by most/all refs?

This may be a solution in search of a problem, but what about a rule in the last 2 minutes or so that if a foul is against a player who is not in possession of the ball, then the team would have the option of sending the player to the line or taking the ball out of bounds. This would benefit the team with the poor FT shooter and allow him to stay on the floor for defensive or rebounding purposes. But it would also benefit the team that is committing the foul because it would force the other team to inbound the ball; which is often no easy task.